Election 2010: Teabaggin' the Ds & Rs

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

No fair, you took mine.

But, okay. Farm subsidies are about $20 billion. I'll cut 100% of that. (Think you can find one Tea-Partier who will go there with me?)

"Other Agencies" $19.8 billion
Corporation for National and Community Service - $1 billion
10% of DoE - 4.6 billion

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

I'll stay away from comp and benefits. One less plane, ship, etc. off each order of each project should do it.

But the military brass say the need everyone one of the weapons system (that are manufactured in my district) for force readiness!

Moreover rather than add to the list (farm subsidies were my favorite cut anyway), I'll note that this is the wrong exercise. This or next year's budget isn't really that hard to solve. The hard part of what to do about Medicare farther down the road.

Your proposal?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

I'll stay away from comp and benefits. One less plane, ship, etc. off each order of each project should do it.

Total procurement budget is about $145B. You'll need to cut about 40% of that to meet your target. Ready to do it?

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Adder

But the military brass say the need everyone one of the weapons system (that are manufactured in my district) for force readiness!

Moreover rather than add to the list (farm subsidies were my favorite cut anyway), I'll note that this is the wrong exercise. This or next year's budget isn't really that hard to solve. The hard part of what to do about Medicare farther down the road.

Your proposal?

The usual. Raise the qualifying age, raise the cap on medicare taxes, etc. I would also propose raising (or instituting) the co-pay. Our biggest problem right now is that people are not disincentivized to ration care on their own because there is little cost to them. My grandmother, alone, may bankrupt the system.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

I really don't get the purpose of this exercise. No one on this board, I'll venture, likes farm subsidies. That's not surprising, since most Americans probably do not want to pay more taxes in order to provide farm subsidies. The problem is that they don't feel strongly about it, and some Americans really like farm subsidies and feel really strongly about it. (And, farm each states get two Senators.) Which is a regular problem. Most Americans don't support tax cuts for the super wealthy, but the super wealthy really do, and spend a lot of money on the issue.

Any one of us could surely design a balanced budget without too much trouble. But that's not politics. Politics is about finding a way to balance all of the competing views and differences in preferences. No one will find the outcome more attractive that all other possibilities.

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Total procurement budget is about $145B. You'll need to cut about 40% of that to meet your target. Ready to do it?

Maybe. But would need more detail. Defense spending rose 12+% between 2009 and 2010 budgets. That's $72 billion. Even if we don't touch salaries and benefits, and we don't cut 40% of procurement, I'm pretty sure I can can get to my $58 billion number.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I really don't get the purpose of this exercise. No one on this board, I'll venture, likes farm subsidies. That's not surprising, since most Americans probably do not want to pay more taxes in order to provide farm subsidies. The problem is that they don't feel strongly about it, and some Americans really like farm subsidies and feel really strongly about it. (And, farm each states get two Senators.) Which is a regular problem. Most Americans don't support tax cuts for the super wealthy, but the super wealthy really do, and spend a lot of money on the issue.

Any one of us could surely design a balanced budget without too much trouble. But that's not politics. Politics is about finding a way to balance all of the competing views and differences in preferences. No one will find the outcome more attractive that all other possibilities.

if you want people to treat you as non-troll go quote your posts from last night about the 2010 elections and show the reality-appreciating-sense you hint at in the above.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I really don't get the purpose of this exercise. No one on this board, I'll venture, likes farm subsidies. That's not surprising, since most Americans probably do not want to pay more taxes in order to provide farm subsidies. The problem is that they don't feel strongly about it, and some Americans really like farm subsidies and feel really strongly about it. (And, farm each states get two Senators.) Which is a regular problem. Most Americans don't support tax cuts for the super wealthy, but the super wealthy really do, and spend a lot of money on the issue.

Any one of us could surely design a balanced budget without too much trouble. But that's not politics. Politics is about finding a way to balance all of the competing views and differences in preferences. No one will find the outcome more attractive that all other possibilities.

Oh, come on, Club's getting ready to close all the military bases in the South, shut down the contracts that keep much of the rust belt and the pacific northwest employed, closing down the NASA facilities in Texas and Florida, and scuttling subsidies for every farmer in the midwest.

Then we get to sit back and think about what the next congress after that looks like.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

Maybe. But would need more detail. Defense spending rose 12+% between 2009 and 2010 budgets. That's $72 billion. Even if we don't touch salaries and benefits, and we don't cut 40% of procurement, I'm pretty sure I can can get to my $58 billion number.

Back to trimming the unidentified fat, aye?

Why not close some bases? They aren't going to have as many subs or planes, so surely we can get rid of the facilities that would have housed those, right?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

if you want people to treat you as non-troll go quote your posts from last night about the 2010 elections and show the reality-appreciating-sense you hint at in the above.

In your world, it's a good idea to piss off your base? I really don't get what I said that's controversial or WTF you are talking about. I didn't say that a Democrat can win elections without independents, but you seem to find some odd, masturbatory pleasure in pretending that I did.

Here are facts:

In 2008, polls showed that young people were overwhelmingly supportive of Obama and the Democrats. And they turned out in droves. According to the research group CIRCLE—The Center for Information & Research on Civic Learning and Engagement—which tracks civic engagement among young voters, 51 percent of 18- to-19-year-olds voted that year.

In 2010, polls showed that young people were still supportive of Obama and the Democrats. But only 20.9 percent of them bothered to vote.

Part of the reason Republicans did better last month is that more independents voted for McCain. But another part of the reason is that fewer Obama voters went to vote at all. It's not that complicated.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

The usual. Raise the qualifying age, raise the cap on medicare taxes, etc. I would also propose raising (or instituting) the co-pay. Our biggest problem right now is that people are not disincentivized to ration care on their own because there is little cost to them. My grandmother, alone, may bankrupt the system.

Sounds like all you need to do is get the members of this board elected to congress.

Good luck with that.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I haven't been following the protests in England but this is an interesting account on a few different levels.

My college tried to raise rents when I was going to school in England. Everyone (except the foreigners) went on strike. I'm not surprised that this is going on.

ETA: The north American support group still gives more money to our college than the British one. Philanthropy for higher education isn't really part of the culture.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Most Americans don't support tax cuts for the super wealthy, but the super wealthy really do, and spend a lot of money on the issue.

If only we could design a system where the money they would have to spend was greater than the money they save in the tax cut!

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

In your world, it's a good idea to piss off your base? I really don't get what I said that's controversial or WTF you are talking about. I didn't say that a Democrat can win elections without independents, but you seem to find some odd, masturbatory pleasure in pretending that I did.

Here are facts:



Part of the reason Republicans did better last month is that more independents voted for McCain. But another part of the reason is that fewer Obama voters went to vote at all. It's not that complicated.

smh and for that matter smham

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

In your world, it's a good idea to piss off your base? I really don't get what I said that's controversial or WTF you are talking about. I didn't say that a Democrat can win elections without independents, but you seem to find some odd, masturbatory pleasure in pretending that I did.

Here are facts:



Part of the reason Republicans did better last month is that more independents voted for McCain. But another part of the reason is that fewer Obama voters went to vote at all. It's not that complicated.

Hank thinks independents are more important to Obama's reelection than progressives/young people. He's probably right.

Obama won because of both effects. Given the realities of governing, only one of those effects is likely repeatable. ETA: Especially for a man who, as I have always said, is essentially a pragmatist.